Python | Summation of nonzero groups

Loops | nonzero | Python Methods and Functions | String Variables

Method # 1: Using Loops

This task can be accomplished using the brute force method using loops. We simply loop through each element of the list to check that its subsequent element has a non-zero value, and perform the summation as soon as we find the next value equal to zero, and add it to the list of results.

# Python3 demo code
# sum non-zero groups
# Using loops

# initializing list

test_list = [ 4 , 9 , 0 , 0 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 0 , 0 , 4 , 0 ]

# printing the original list

print ( "The original list: " + str (test_list))

# using loops
# sum non-zero groups

res = []

va l = 0

for ele in test_list:

if ele = = 0 :

if val! = 0 :

res.append (val)

  val = 0

else :

  val + = ele

# print result

print ( "The non-zero group summation of list is: " + str (res))


 The original list: [4, 9, 0 , 0, 3, 4, 5, 0, 0, 4, 0] The non-zero group summation of list is: [13, 12, 4] 

Method No. 2: Using itertools.groupby () + sum ()

This particular task can also be done using the groupby function to group all non-zero values, and the sum function can be used to summarize them.

# Python3 demo code
# summing non-zero groups
# Using itertools.groupby () + sum ()

from itertools import groupby

# initializing list

test_list = [ 4 , 9 , 0 , 0 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 0 , 0 , 4 , 0 ]

# print the original list

print ( "The original list: " + str (test_list))

# using itertools.groupby () + sum ()
# sum non-zero groups

res = [ sum (val) for keys, v al in groupby (test_list,

key = lambda x: x! = 0 ) if keys! = 0 ]

# print result

print ( "The non-zero group summation of list is: " + str (res))


 The original list: [ 4, 9, 0, 0, 3, 4, 5, 0, 0, 4, 0] The non-zero group summation of list is: [13, 12, 4] 

Python | Summation of nonzero groups: StackOverflow Questions

Answer #1

There are several ways to select rows from a Pandas dataframe:

  1. Boolean indexing (df[df["col"] == value] )
  2. Positional indexing (df.iloc[...])
  3. Label indexing (df.xs(...))
  4. df.query(...) API

Below I show you examples of each, with advice when to use certain techniques. Assume our criterion is column "A" == "foo"

(Note on performance: For each base type, we can keep things simple by using the Pandas API or we can venture outside the API, usually into NumPy, and speed things up.)


The first thing we"ll need is to identify a condition that will act as our criterion for selecting rows. We"ll start with the OP"s case column_name == some_value, and include some other common use cases.

Borrowing from @unutbu:

import pandas as pd, numpy as np

df = pd.DataFrame({"A": "foo bar foo bar foo bar foo foo".split(),
                   "B": "one one two three two two one three".split(),
                   "C": np.arange(8), "D": np.arange(8) * 2})

1. Boolean indexing

... Boolean indexing requires finding the true value of each row"s "A" column being equal to "foo", then using those truth values to identify which rows to keep. Typically, we"d name this series, an array of truth values, mask. We"ll do so here as well.

mask = df["A"] == "foo"

We can then use this mask to slice or index the data frame


     A      B  C   D
0  foo    one  0   0
2  foo    two  2   4
4  foo    two  4   8
6  foo    one  6  12
7  foo  three  7  14

This is one of the simplest ways to accomplish this task and if performance or intuitiveness isn"t an issue, this should be your chosen method. However, if performance is a concern, then you might want to consider an alternative way of creating the mask.

2. Positional indexing

Positional indexing (df.iloc[...]) has its use cases, but this isn"t one of them. In order to identify where to slice, we first need to perform the same boolean analysis we did above. This leaves us performing one extra step to accomplish the same task.

mask = df["A"] == "foo"
pos = np.flatnonzero(mask)

     A      B  C   D
0  foo    one  0   0
2  foo    two  2   4
4  foo    two  4   8
6  foo    one  6  12
7  foo  three  7  14

3. Label indexing

Label indexing can be very handy, but in this case, we are again doing more work for no benefit

df.set_index("A", append=True, drop=False).xs("foo", level=1)

     A      B  C   D
0  foo    one  0   0
2  foo    two  2   4
4  foo    two  4   8
6  foo    one  6  12
7  foo  three  7  14

4. df.query() API

pd.DataFrame.query is a very elegant/intuitive way to perform this task, but is often slower. However, if you pay attention to the timings below, for large data, the query is very efficient. More so than the standard approach and of similar magnitude as my best suggestion.

df.query("A == "foo"")

     A      B  C   D
0  foo    one  0   0
2  foo    two  2   4
4  foo    two  4   8
6  foo    one  6  12
7  foo  three  7  14

My preference is to use the Boolean mask

Actual improvements can be made by modifying how we create our Boolean mask.

mask alternative 1 Use the underlying NumPy array and forgo the overhead of creating another pd.Series

mask = df["A"].values == "foo"

I"ll show more complete time tests at the end, but just take a look at the performance gains we get using the sample data frame. First, we look at the difference in creating the mask

%timeit mask = df["A"].values == "foo"
%timeit mask = df["A"] == "foo"

5.84 µs ± 195 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
166 µs ± 4.45 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)

Evaluating the mask with the NumPy array is ~ 30 times faster. This is partly due to NumPy evaluation often being faster. It is also partly due to the lack of overhead necessary to build an index and a corresponding pd.Series object.

Next, we"ll look at the timing for slicing with one mask versus the other.

mask = df["A"].values == "foo"
%timeit df[mask]
mask = df["A"] == "foo"
%timeit df[mask]

219 µs ± 12.3 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)
239 µs ± 7.03 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

The performance gains aren"t as pronounced. We"ll see if this holds up over more robust testing.

mask alternative 2 We could have reconstructed the data frame as well. There is a big caveat when reconstructing a dataframe—you must take care of the dtypes when doing so!

Instead of df[mask] we will do this

pd.DataFrame(df.values[mask], df.index[mask], df.columns).astype(df.dtypes)

If the data frame is of mixed type, which our example is, then when we get df.values the resulting array is of dtype object and consequently, all columns of the new data frame will be of dtype object. Thus requiring the astype(df.dtypes) and killing any potential performance gains.

%timeit df[m]
%timeit pd.DataFrame(df.values[mask], df.index[mask], df.columns).astype(df.dtypes)

216 µs ± 10.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)
1.43 ms ± 39.6 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

However, if the data frame is not of mixed type, this is a very useful way to do it.


d1 = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(10, size=(10, 5)), columns=list("ABCDE"))


   A  B  C  D  E
0  0  2  7  3  8
1  7  0  6  8  6
2  0  2  0  4  9
3  7  3  2  4  3
4  3  6  7  7  4
5  5  3  7  5  9
6  8  7  6  4  7
7  6  2  6  6  5
8  2  8  7  5  8
9  4  7  6  1  5

mask = d1["A"].values == 7

179 µs ± 8.73 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)


mask = d1["A"].values == 7
pd.DataFrame(d1.values[mask], d1.index[mask], d1.columns)

87 µs ± 5.12 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)

We cut the time in half.

mask alternative 3

@unutbu also shows us how to use pd.Series.isin to account for each element of df["A"] being in a set of values. This evaluates to the same thing if our set of values is a set of one value, namely "foo". But it also generalizes to include larger sets of values if needed. Turns out, this is still pretty fast even though it is a more general solution. The only real loss is in intuitiveness for those not familiar with the concept.

mask = df["A"].isin(["foo"])

     A      B  C   D
0  foo    one  0   0
2  foo    two  2   4
4  foo    two  4   8
6  foo    one  6  12
7  foo  three  7  14

However, as before, we can utilize NumPy to improve performance while sacrificing virtually nothing. We"ll use np.in1d

mask = np.in1d(df["A"].values, ["foo"])

     A      B  C   D
0  foo    one  0   0
2  foo    two  2   4
4  foo    two  4   8
6  foo    one  6  12
7  foo  three  7  14


I"ll include other concepts mentioned in other posts as well for reference.

Code Below

Each column in this table represents a different length data frame over which we test each function. Each column shows relative time taken, with the fastest function given a base index of 1.0.


                         10        30        100       300       1000      3000      10000     30000
mask_standard         2.156872  1.850663  2.034149  2.166312  2.164541  3.090372  2.981326  3.131151
mask_standard_loc     1.879035  1.782366  1.988823  2.338112  2.361391  3.036131  2.998112  2.990103
mask_with_values      1.010166  1.000000  1.005113  1.026363  1.028698  1.293741  1.007824  1.016919
mask_with_values_loc  1.196843  1.300228  1.000000  1.000000  1.038989  1.219233  1.037020  1.000000
query                 4.997304  4.765554  5.934096  4.500559  2.997924  2.397013  1.680447  1.398190
xs_label              4.124597  4.272363  5.596152  4.295331  4.676591  5.710680  6.032809  8.950255
mask_with_isin        1.674055  1.679935  1.847972  1.724183  1.345111  1.405231  1.253554  1.264760
mask_with_in1d        1.000000  1.083807  1.220493  1.101929  1.000000  1.000000  1.000000  1.144175

You"ll notice that the fastest times seem to be shared between mask_with_values and mask_with_in1d.


Enter image description here


def mask_standard(df):
    mask = df["A"] == "foo"
    return df[mask]

def mask_standard_loc(df):
    mask = df["A"] == "foo"
    return df.loc[mask]

def mask_with_values(df):
    mask = df["A"].values == "foo"
    return df[mask]

def mask_with_values_loc(df):
    mask = df["A"].values == "foo"
    return df.loc[mask]

def query(df):
    return df.query("A == "foo"")

def xs_label(df):
    return df.set_index("A", append=True, drop=False).xs("foo", level=-1)

def mask_with_isin(df):
    mask = df["A"].isin(["foo"])
    return df[mask]

def mask_with_in1d(df):
    mask = np.in1d(df["A"].values, ["foo"])
    return df[mask]


res = pd.DataFrame(
        "mask_standard", "mask_standard_loc", "mask_with_values", "mask_with_values_loc",
        "query", "xs_label", "mask_with_isin", "mask_with_in1d"
    columns=[10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, 3000, 10000, 30000],

for j in res.columns:
    d = pd.concat([df] * j, ignore_index=True)
    for i in res.index:a
        stmt = "{}(d)".format(i)
        setp = "from __main__ import d, {}".format(i)[i, j] = timeit(stmt, setp, number=50)

Special Timing

Looking at the special case when we have a single non-object dtype for the entire data frame.

Code Below


                     10        30        100       300       1000      3000      10000     30000
mask_with_values  1.009030  1.000000  1.194276  1.000000  1.236892  1.095343  1.000000  1.000000
mask_with_in1d    1.104638  1.094524  1.156930  1.072094  1.000000  1.000000  1.040043  1.027100
reconstruct       1.000000  1.142838  1.000000  1.355440  1.650270  2.222181  2.294913  3.406735

Turns out, reconstruction isn"t worth it past a few hundred rows.


Enter image description here


d1 = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(10, size=(10, 5)), columns=list("ABCDE"))

def mask_with_values(df):
    mask = df["A"].values == "foo"
    return df[mask]

def mask_with_in1d(df):
    mask = np.in1d(df["A"].values, ["foo"])
    return df[mask]

def reconstruct(df):
    v = df.values
    mask = np.in1d(df["A"].values, ["foo"])
    return pd.DataFrame(v[mask], df.index[mask], df.columns)

spec = pd.DataFrame(
    index=["mask_with_values", "mask_with_in1d", "reconstruct"],
    columns=[10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, 3000, 10000, 30000],


for j in spec.columns:
    d = pd.concat([df] * j, ignore_index=True)
    for i in spec.index:
        stmt = "{}(d)".format(i)
        setp = "from __main__ import d, {}".format(i)[i, j] = timeit(stmt, setp, number=50)

Answer #2

Your array a defines the columns of the nonzero elements in the output array. You need to also define the rows and then use fancy indexing:

>>> a = np.array([1, 0, 3])
>>> b = np.zeros((a.size, a.max()+1))
>>> b[np.arange(a.size),a] = 1
>>> b
array([[ 0.,  1.,  0.,  0.],
       [ 1.,  0.,  0.,  0.],
       [ 0.,  0.,  0.,  1.]])

Answer #3

What about using numpy.count_nonzero, something like

>>> import numpy as np
>>> y = np.array([1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0, 2, 3, 3, 3, 0, 0, 2, 2, 0])

>>> np.count_nonzero(y == 1)
>>> np.count_nonzero(y == 2)
>>> np.count_nonzero(y == 3)

Answer #4

To somewhat expand on the earlier answers here, there are a number of details which are commonly overlooked.

  • Prefer over subprocess.check_call() and friends over over subprocess.Popen() over os.system() over os.popen()
  • Understand and probably use text=True, aka universal_newlines=True.
  • Understand the meaning of shell=True or shell=False and how it changes quoting and the availability of shell conveniences.
  • Understand differences between sh and Bash
  • Understand how a subprocess is separate from its parent, and generally cannot change the parent.
  • Avoid running the Python interpreter as a subprocess of Python.

These topics are covered in some more detail below.

Prefer or subprocess.check_call()

The subprocess.Popen() function is a low-level workhorse but it is tricky to use correctly and you end up copy/pasting multiple lines of code ... which conveniently already exist in the standard library as a set of higher-level wrapper functions for various purposes, which are presented in more detail in the following.

Here"s a paragraph from the documentation:

The recommended approach to invoking subprocesses is to use the run() function for all use cases it can handle. For more advanced use cases, the underlying Popen interface can be used directly.

Unfortunately, the availability of these wrapper functions differs between Python versions.

  • was officially introduced in Python 3.5. It is meant to replace all of the following.
  • subprocess.check_output() was introduced in Python 2.7 / 3.1. It is basically equivalent to, check=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE).stdout
  • subprocess.check_call() was introduced in Python 2.5. It is basically equivalent to, check=True)
  • was introduced in Python 2.4 in the original subprocess module (PEP-324). It is basically equivalent to

High-level API vs subprocess.Popen()

The refactored and extended is more logical and more versatile than the older legacy functions it replaces. It returns a CompletedProcess object which has various methods which allow you to retrieve the exit status, the standard output, and a few other results and status indicators from the finished subprocess. is the way to go if you simply need a program to run and return control to Python. For more involved scenarios (background processes, perhaps with interactive I/O with the Python parent program) you still need to use subprocess.Popen() and take care of all the plumbing yourself. This requires a fairly intricate understanding of all the moving parts and should not be undertaken lightly. The simpler Popen object represents the (possibly still-running) process which needs to be managed from your code for the remainder of the lifetime of the subprocess.

It should perhaps be emphasized that just subprocess.Popen() merely creates a process. If you leave it at that, you have a subprocess running concurrently alongside with Python, so a "background" process. If it doesn"t need to do input or output or otherwise coordinate with you, it can do useful work in parallel with your Python program.

Avoid os.system() and os.popen()

Since time eternal (well, since Python 2.5) the os module documentation has contained the recommendation to prefer subprocess over os.system():

The subprocess module provides more powerful facilities for spawning new processes and retrieving their results; using that module is preferable to using this function.

The problems with system() are that it"s obviously system-dependent and doesn"t offer ways to interact with the subprocess. It simply runs, with standard output and standard error outside of Python"s reach. The only information Python receives back is the exit status of the command (zero means success, though the meaning of non-zero values is also somewhat system-dependent).

PEP-324 (which was already mentioned above) contains a more detailed rationale for why os.system is problematic and how subprocess attempts to solve those issues.

os.popen() used to be even more strongly discouraged:

Deprecated since version 2.6: This function is obsolete. Use the subprocess module.

However, since sometime in Python 3, it has been reimplemented to simply use subprocess, and redirects to the subprocess.Popen() documentation for details.

Understand and usually use check=True

You"ll also notice that has many of the same limitations as os.system(). In regular use, you should generally check whether the process finished successfully, which subprocess.check_call() and subprocess.check_output() do (where the latter also returns the standard output of the finished subprocess). Similarly, you should usually use check=True with unless you specifically need to allow the subprocess to return an error status.

In practice, with check=True or subprocess.check_*, Python will throw a CalledProcessError exception if the subprocess returns a nonzero exit status.

A common error with is to omit check=True and be surprised when downstream code fails if the subprocess failed.

On the other hand, a common problem with check_call() and check_output() was that users who blindly used these functions were surprised when the exception was raised e.g. when grep did not find a match. (You should probably replace grep with native Python code anyway, as outlined below.)

All things counted, you need to understand how shell commands return an exit code, and under what conditions they will return a non-zero (error) exit code, and make a conscious decision how exactly it should be handled.

Understand and probably use text=True aka universal_newlines=True

Since Python 3, strings internal to Python are Unicode strings. But there is no guarantee that a subprocess generates Unicode output, or strings at all.

(If the differences are not immediately obvious, Ned Batchelder"s Pragmatic Unicode is recommended, if not outright obligatory, reading. There is a 36-minute video presentation behind the link if you prefer, though reading the page yourself will probably take significantly less time.)

Deep down, Python has to fetch a bytes buffer and interpret it somehow. If it contains a blob of binary data, it shouldn"t be decoded into a Unicode string, because that"s error-prone and bug-inducing behavior - precisely the sort of pesky behavior which riddled many Python 2 scripts, before there was a way to properly distinguish between encoded text and binary data.

With text=True, you tell Python that you, in fact, expect back textual data in the system"s default encoding, and that it should be decoded into a Python (Unicode) string to the best of Python"s ability (usually UTF-8 on any moderately up to date system, except perhaps Windows?)

If that"s not what you request back, Python will just give you bytes strings in the stdout and stderr strings. Maybe at some later point you do know that they were text strings after all, and you know their encoding. Then, you can decode them.

normal =[external, arg],
    stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE,

convoluted =[external, arg],
    stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
# You have to know (or guess) the encoding

Python 3.7 introduced the shorter and more descriptive and understandable alias text for the keyword argument which was previously somewhat misleadingly called universal_newlines.

Understand shell=True vs shell=False

With shell=True you pass a single string to your shell, and the shell takes it from there.

With shell=False you pass a list of arguments to the OS, bypassing the shell.

When you don"t have a shell, you save a process and get rid of a fairly substantial amount of hidden complexity, which may or may not harbor bugs or even security problems.

On the other hand, when you don"t have a shell, you don"t have redirection, wildcard expansion, job control, and a large number of other shell features.

A common mistake is to use shell=True and then still pass Python a list of tokens, or vice versa. This happens to work in some cases, but is really ill-defined and could break in interesting ways.

buggy ="dig +short")

broken =["dig", "+short", ""],

pathological =["dig +short"],

correct =["dig", "+short", ""],
    # Probably don"t forget these, too
    check=True, text=True)

# XXX Probably better avoid shell=True
# but this is nominally correct
fixed_but_fugly ="dig +short",
    # Probably don"t forget these, too
    check=True, text=True)

The common retort "but it works for me" is not a useful rebuttal unless you understand exactly under what circumstances it could stop working.

Refactoring Example

Very often, the features of the shell can be replaced with native Python code. Simple Awk or sed scripts should probably simply be translated to Python instead.

To partially illustrate this, here is a typical but slightly silly example which involves many shell features.

cmd = """while read -r x;
   do ping -c 3 "$x" | grep "round-trip min/avg/max"
   done <hosts.txt"""

# Trivial but horrible
results =
    cmd, shell=True, universal_newlines=True, check=True)

# Reimplement with shell=False
with open("hosts.txt") as hosts:
    for host in hosts:
        host = host.rstrip("
")  # drop newline
        ping =
             ["ping", "-c", "3", host],
        for line in ping.stdout.split("
             if "round-trip min/avg/max" in line:
                 print("{}: {}".format(host, line))

Some things to note here:

  • With shell=False you don"t need the quoting that the shell requires around strings. Putting quotes anyway is probably an error.
  • It often makes sense to run as little code as possible in a subprocess. This gives you more control over execution from within your Python code.
  • Having said that, complex shell pipelines are tedious and sometimes challenging to reimplement in Python.

The refactored code also illustrates just how much the shell really does for you with a very terse syntax -- for better or for worse. Python says explicit is better than implicit but the Python code is rather verbose and arguably looks more complex than this really is. On the other hand, it offers a number of points where you can grab control in the middle of something else, as trivially exemplified by the enhancement that we can easily include the host name along with the shell command output. (This is by no means challenging to do in the shell, either, but at the expense of yet another diversion and perhaps another process.)

Common Shell Constructs

For completeness, here are brief explanations of some of these shell features, and some notes on how they can perhaps be replaced with native Python facilities.

  • Globbing aka wildcard expansion can be replaced with glob.glob() or very often with simple Python string comparisons like for file in os.listdir("."): if not file.endswith(".png"): continue. Bash has various other expansion facilities like .{png,jpg} brace expansion and {1..100} as well as tilde expansion (~ expands to your home directory, and more generally ~account to the home directory of another user)
  • Shell variables like $SHELL or $my_exported_var can sometimes simply be replaced with Python variables. Exported shell variables are available as e.g. os.environ["SHELL"] (the meaning of export is to make the variable available to subprocesses -- a variable which is not available to subprocesses will obviously not be available to Python running as a subprocess of the shell, or vice versa. The env= keyword argument to subprocess methods allows you to define the environment of the subprocess as a dictionary, so that"s one way to make a Python variable visible to a subprocess). With shell=False you will need to understand how to remove any quotes; for example, cd "$HOME" is equivalent to os.chdir(os.environ["HOME"]) without quotes around the directory name. (Very often cd is not useful or necessary anyway, and many beginners omit the double quotes around the variable and get away with it until one day ...)
  • Redirection allows you to read from a file as your standard input, and write your standard output to a file. grep "foo" <inputfile >outputfile opens outputfile for writing and inputfile for reading, and passes its contents as standard input to grep, whose standard output then lands in outputfile. This is not generally hard to replace with native Python code.
  • Pipelines are a form of redirection. echo foo | nl runs two subprocesses, where the standard output of echo is the standard input of nl (on the OS level, in Unix-like systems, this is a single file handle). If you cannot replace one or both ends of the pipeline with native Python code, perhaps think about using a shell after all, especially if the pipeline has more than two or three processes (though look at the pipes module in the Python standard library or a number of more modern and versatile third-party competitors).
  • Job control lets you interrupt jobs, run them in the background, return them to the foreground, etc. The basic Unix signals to stop and continue a process are of course available from Python, too. But jobs are a higher-level abstraction in the shell which involve process groups etc which you have to understand if you want to do something like this from Python.
  • Quoting in the shell is potentially confusing until you understand that everything is basically a string. So ls -l / is equivalent to "ls" "-l" "/" but the quoting around literals is completely optional. Unquoted strings which contain shell metacharacters undergo parameter expansion, whitespace tokenization and wildcard expansion; double quotes prevent whitespace tokenization and wildcard expansion but allow parameter expansions (variable substitution, command substitution, and backslash processing). This is simple in theory but can get bewildering, especially when there are several layers of interpretation (a remote shell command, for example).

Understand differences between sh and Bash

subprocess runs your shell commands with /bin/sh unless you specifically request otherwise (except of course on Windows, where it uses the value of the COMSPEC variable). This means that various Bash-only features like arrays, [[ etc are not available.

If you need to use Bash-only syntax, you can pass in the path to the shell as executable="/bin/bash" (where of course if your Bash is installed somewhere else, you need to adjust the path)."""
    # This for loop syntax is Bash only
    for((i=1;i<=$#;i++)); do
        # Arrays are Bash-only
    shell=True, check=True,

A subprocess is separate from its parent, and cannot change it

A somewhat common mistake is doing something like"cd /tmp", shell=True)"pwd", shell=True)  # Oops, doesn"t print /tmp

The same thing will happen if the first subprocess tries to set an environment variable, which of course will have disappeared when you run another subprocess, etc.

A child process runs completely separate from Python, and when it finishes, Python has no idea what it did (apart from the vague indicators that it can infer from the exit status and output from the child process). A child generally cannot change the parent"s environment; it cannot set a variable, change the working directory, or, in so many words, communicate with its parent without cooperation from the parent.

The immediate fix in this particular case is to run both commands in a single subprocess;"cd /tmp; pwd", shell=True)

though obviously this particular use case isn"t very useful; instead, use the cwd keyword argument, or simply os.chdir() before running the subprocess. Similarly, for setting a variable, you can manipulate the environment of the current process (and thus also its children) via

os.environ["foo"] = "bar"

or pass an environment setting to a child process with"echo "$foo"", shell=True, env={"foo": "bar"})

(not to mention the obvious refactoring["echo", "bar"]); but echo is a poor example of something to run in a subprocess in the first place, of course).

Don"t run Python from Python

This is slightly dubious advice; there are certainly situations where it does make sense or is even an absolute requirement to run the Python interpreter as a subprocess from a Python script. But very frequently, the correct approach is simply to import the other Python module into your calling script and call its functions directly.

If the other Python script is under your control, and it isn"t a module, consider turning it into one. (This answer is too long already so I will not delve into details here.)

If you need parallelism, you can run Python functions in subprocesses with the multiprocessing module. There is also threading which runs multiple tasks in a single process (which is more lightweight and gives you more control, but also more constrained in that threads within a process are tightly coupled, and bound to a single GIL.)

Answer #5

Best way to check if a list is empty

For example, if passed the following:

a = []

How do I check to see if a is empty?

Short Answer:

Place the list in a boolean context (for example, with an if or while statement). It will test False if it is empty, and True otherwise. For example:

if not a:                           # do this!
    print("a is an empty list")


PEP 8, the official Python style guide for Python code in Python"s standard library, asserts:

For sequences, (strings, lists, tuples), use the fact that empty sequences are false.

Yes: if not seq:
     if seq:

No: if len(seq):
    if not len(seq):

We should expect that standard library code should be as performant and correct as possible. But why is that the case, and why do we need this guidance?


I frequently see code like this from experienced programmers new to Python:

if len(a) == 0:                     # Don"t do this!
    print("a is an empty list")

And users of lazy languages may be tempted to do this:

if a == []:                         # Don"t do this!
    print("a is an empty list")

These are correct in their respective other languages. And this is even semantically correct in Python.

But we consider it un-Pythonic because Python supports these semantics directly in the list object"s interface via boolean coercion.

From the docs (and note specifically the inclusion of the empty list, []):

By default, an object is considered true unless its class defines either a __bool__() method that returns False or a __len__() method that returns zero, when called with the object. Here are most of the built-in objects considered false:

  • constants defined to be false: None and False.
  • zero of any numeric type: 0, 0.0, 0j, Decimal(0), Fraction(0, 1)
  • empty sequences and collections: "", (), [], {}, set(), range(0)

And the datamodel documentation:


Called to implement truth value testing and the built-in operation bool(); should return False or True. When this method is not defined, __len__() is called, if it is defined, and the object is considered true if its result is nonzero. If a class defines neither __len__() nor __bool__(), all its instances are considered true.



Called to implement the built-in function len(). Should return the length of the object, an integer >= 0. Also, an object that doesn’t define a __bool__() method and whose __len__() method returns zero is considered to be false in a Boolean context.

So instead of this:

if len(a) == 0:                     # Don"t do this!
    print("a is an empty list")

or this:

if a == []:                     # Don"t do this!
    print("a is an empty list")

Do this:

if not a:
    print("a is an empty list")

Doing what"s Pythonic usually pays off in performance:

Does it pay off? (Note that less time to perform an equivalent operation is better:)

>>> import timeit
>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: len([]) == 0, repeat=100))
>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: [] == [], repeat=100))
>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: not [], repeat=100))

For scale, here"s the cost of calling the function and constructing and returning an empty list, which you might subtract from the costs of the emptiness checks used above:

>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: [], repeat=100))

We see that either checking for length with the builtin function len compared to 0 or checking against an empty list is much less performant than using the builtin syntax of the language as documented.


For the len(a) == 0 check:

First Python has to check the globals to see if len is shadowed.

Then it must call the function, load 0, and do the equality comparison in Python (instead of with C):

>>> import dis
>>> dis.dis(lambda: len([]) == 0)
  1           0 LOAD_GLOBAL              0 (len)
              2 BUILD_LIST               0
              4 CALL_FUNCTION            1
              6 LOAD_CONST               1 (0)
              8 COMPARE_OP               2 (==)
             10 RETURN_VALUE

And for the [] == [] it has to build an unnecessary list and then, again, do the comparison operation in Python"s virtual machine (as opposed to C)

>>> dis.dis(lambda: [] == [])
  1           0 BUILD_LIST               0
              2 BUILD_LIST               0
              4 COMPARE_OP               2 (==)
              6 RETURN_VALUE

The "Pythonic" way is a much simpler and faster check since the length of the list is cached in the object instance header:

>>> dis.dis(lambda: not [])
  1           0 BUILD_LIST               0
              2 UNARY_NOT
              4 RETURN_VALUE

Evidence from the C source and documentation


This is an extension of PyObject that adds the ob_size field. This is only used for objects that have some notion of length. This type does not often appear in the Python/C API. It corresponds to the fields defined by the expansion of the PyObject_VAR_HEAD macro.

From the c source in Include/listobject.h:

typedef struct {
    /* Vector of pointers to list elements.  list[0] is ob_item[0], etc. */
    PyObject **ob_item;

    /* ob_item contains space for "allocated" elements.  The number
     * currently in use is ob_size.
     * Invariants:
     *     0 <= ob_size <= allocated
     *     len(list) == ob_size

Response to comments:

I would point out that this is also true for the non-empty case though its pretty ugly as with l=[] then %timeit len(l) != 0 90.6 ns ± 8.3 ns, %timeit l != [] 55.6 ns ± 3.09, %timeit not not l 38.5 ns ± 0.372. But there is no way anyone is going to enjoy not not l despite triple the speed. It looks ridiculous. But the speed wins out
I suppose the problem is testing with timeit since just if l: is sufficient but surprisingly %timeit bool(l) yields 101 ns ± 2.64 ns. Interesting there is no way to coerce to bool without this penalty. %timeit l is useless since no conversion would occur.

IPython magic, %timeit, is not entirely useless here:

In [1]: l = []                                                                  

In [2]: %timeit l                                                               
20 ns ± 0.155 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000000 loops each)

In [3]: %timeit not l                                                           
24.4 ns ± 1.58 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [4]: %timeit not not l                                                       
30.1 ns ± 2.16 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

We can see there"s a bit of linear cost for each additional not here. We want to see the costs, ceteris paribus, that is, all else equal - where all else is minimized as far as possible:

In [5]: %timeit if l: pass                                                      
22.6 ns ± 0.963 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [6]: %timeit if not l: pass                                                  
24.4 ns ± 0.796 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [7]: %timeit if not not l: pass                                              
23.4 ns ± 0.793 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

Now let"s look at the case for an unempty list:

In [8]: l = [1]                                                                 

In [9]: %timeit if l: pass                                                      
23.7 ns ± 1.06 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [10]: %timeit if not l: pass                                                 
23.6 ns ± 1.64 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [11]: %timeit if not not l: pass                                             
26.3 ns ± 1 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

What we can see here is that it makes little difference whether you pass in an actual bool to the condition check or the list itself, and if anything, giving the list, as is, is faster.

Python is written in C; it uses its logic at the C level. Anything you write in Python will be slower. And it will likely be orders of magnitude slower unless you"re using the mechanisms built into Python directly.

Answer #6

Why is x**4.0 faster than x**4 in Python 3*?

Python 3 int objects are a full fledged object designed to support an arbitrary size; due to that fact, they are handled as such on the C level (see how all variables are declared as PyLongObject * type in long_pow). This also makes their exponentiation a lot more trickier and tedious since you need to play around with the ob_digit array it uses to represent its value to perform it. (Source for the brave. -- See: Understanding memory allocation for large integers in Python for more on PyLongObjects.)

Python float objects, on the contrary, can be transformed to a C double type (by using PyFloat_AsDouble) and operations can be performed using those native types. This is great because, after checking for relevant edge-cases, it allows Python to use the platforms" pow (C"s pow, that is) to handle the actual exponentiation:

/* Now iv and iw are finite, iw is nonzero, and iv is
 * positive and not equal to 1.0.  We finally allow
 * the platform pow to step in and do the rest.
errno = 0;
ix = pow(iv, iw); 

where iv and iw are our original PyFloatObjects as C doubles.

For what it"s worth: Python 2.7.13 for me is a factor 2~3 faster, and shows the inverse behaviour.

The previous fact also explains the discrepancy between Python 2 and 3 so, I thought I"d address this comment too because it is interesting.

In Python 2, you"re using the old int object that differs from the int object in Python 3 (all int objects in 3.x are of PyLongObject type). In Python 2, there"s a distinction that depends on the value of the object (or, if you use the suffix L/l):

# Python 2
type(30)  # <type "int">
type(30L) # <type "long">

The <type "int"> you see here does the same thing floats do, it gets safely converted into a C long when exponentiation is performed on it (The int_pow also hints the compiler to put "em in a register if it can do so, so that could make a difference):

static PyObject *
int_pow(PyIntObject *v, PyIntObject *w, PyIntObject *z)
    register long iv, iw, iz=0, ix, temp, prev;
/* Snipped for brevity */    

this allows for a good speed gain.

To see how sluggish <type "long">s are in comparison to <type "int">s, if you wrapped the x name in a long call in Python 2 (essentially forcing it to use long_pow as in Python 3), the speed gain disappears:

# <type "int">
(python2) ‚ûú python -m timeit "for x in range(1000):" " x**2"       
10000 loops, best of 3: 116 usec per loop
# <type "long"> 
(python2) ‚ûú python -m timeit "for x in range(1000):" " long(x)**2"
100 loops, best of 3: 2.12 msec per loop

Take note that, though the one snippet transforms the int to long while the other does not (as pointed out by @pydsinger), this cast is not the contributing force behind the slowdown. The implementation of long_pow is. (Time the statements solely with long(x) to see).

[...] it doesn"t happen outside of the loop. [...] Any idea about that?

This is CPython"s peephole optimizer folding the constants for you. You get the same exact timings either case since there"s no actual computation to find the result of the exponentiation, only loading of values:

dis.dis(compile("4 ** 4", "", "exec"))
  1           0 LOAD_CONST               2 (256)
              3 POP_TOP
              4 LOAD_CONST               1 (None)
              7 RETURN_VALUE

Identical byte-code is generated for "4 ** 4." with the only difference being that the LOAD_CONST loads the float 256.0 instead of the int 256:

dis.dis(compile("4 ** 4.", "", "exec"))
  1           0 LOAD_CONST               3 (256.0)
              2 POP_TOP
              4 LOAD_CONST               2 (None)
              6 RETURN_VALUE

So the times are identical.

*All of the above apply solely for CPython, the reference implementation of Python. Other implementations might perform differently.

Answer #7


Integer literals are described by the following lexical definitions:

integer        ::=  decimalinteger | octinteger | hexinteger | bininteger
decimalinteger ::=  nonzerodigit digit* | "0"+
nonzerodigit   ::=  "1"..."9"
digit          ::=  "0"..."9"
octinteger     ::=  "0" ("o" | "O") octdigit+
hexinteger     ::=  "0" ("x" | "X") hexdigit+
bininteger     ::=  "0" ("b" | "B") bindigit+
octdigit       ::=  "0"..."7"
hexdigit       ::=  digit | "a"..."f" | "A"..."F"
bindigit       ::=  "0" | "1"

There is no limit for the length of integer literals apart from what can be stored in available memory.

Note that leading zeros in a non-zero decimal number are not allowed. This is for disambiguation with C-style octal literals, which Python used before version 3.0.

As noted here, leading zeros in a non-zero decimal number are not allowed. "0"+ is legal as a very special case, which wasn"t present in Python 2:

integer        ::=  decimalinteger | octinteger | hexinteger | bininteger
decimalinteger ::=  nonzerodigit digit* | "0"
octinteger     ::=  "0" ("o" | "O") octdigit+ | "0" octdigit+

SVN commit r55866 implemented PEP 3127 in the tokenizer, which forbids the old 0<octal> numbers. However, curiously, it also adds this note:

/* in any case, allow "0" as a literal */

with a special nonzero flag that only throws a SyntaxError if the following sequence of digits contains a nonzero digit.

This is odd because PEP 3127 does not allow this case:

This PEP proposes that the ability to specify an octal number by using a leading zero will be removed from the language in Python 3.0 (and the Python 3.0 preview mode of 2.6), and that a SyntaxError will be raised whenever a leading "0" is immediately followed by another digit.

(emphasis mine)

So, the fact that multiple zeros are allowed is technically violating the PEP, and was basically implemented as a special case by Georg Brandl. He made the corresponding documentation change to note that "0"+ was a valid case for decimalinteger (previously that had been covered under octinteger).

We"ll probably never know exactly why Georg chose to make "0"+ valid - it may forever remain an odd corner case in Python.

UPDATE [28 Jul 2015]: This question led to a lively discussion thread on python-ideas in which Georg chimed in:

Steven D"Aprano wrote:

Why was it defined that way? [...] Why would we write 0000 to get zero?

I could tell you, but then I"d have to kill you.


Later on, the thread spawned this bug report aiming to get rid of this special case. Here, Georg says:

I don"t recall the reason for this deliberate change (as seen from the docs change).

I"m unable to come up with a good reason for this change now [...]

and thus we have it: the precise reason behind this inconsistency is lost to time.

Finally, note that the bug report was rejected: leading zeros will continue to be accepted only on zero integers for the rest of Python 3.x.

Answer #8

The not operator (logical negation)

Probably the best way is using the operator not:

>>> value = True
>>> not value

>>> value = False
>>> not value

So instead of your code:

if bool == True:
    return False
    return True

You could use:

return not bool

The logical negation as function

There are also two functions in the operator module operator.not_ and it"s alias operator.__not__ in case you need it as function instead of as operator:

>>> import operator
>>> operator.not_(False)
>>> operator.not_(True)

These can be useful if you want to use a function that requires a predicate-function or a callback.

For example map or filter:

>>> lst = [True, False, True, False]
>>> list(map(operator.not_, lst))
[False, True, False, True]

>>> lst = [True, False, True, False]
>>> list(filter(operator.not_, lst))
[False, False]

Of course the same could also be achieved with an equivalent lambda function:

>>> my_not_function = lambda item: not item

>>> list(map(my_not_function, lst))
[False, True, False, True]

Do not use the bitwise invert operator ~ on booleans

One might be tempted to use the bitwise invert operator ~ or the equivalent operator function operator.inv (or one of the other 3 aliases there). But because bool is a subclass of int the result could be unexpected because it doesn"t return the "inverse boolean", it returns the "inverse integer":

>>> ~True
>>> ~False

That"s because True is equivalent to 1 and False to 0 and bitwise inversion operates on the bitwise representation of the integers 1 and 0.

So these cannot be used to "negate" a bool.

Negation with NumPy arrays (and subclasses)

If you"re dealing with NumPy arrays (or subclasses like pandas.Series or pandas.DataFrame) containing booleans you can actually use the bitwise inverse operator (~) to negate all booleans in an array:

>>> import numpy as np
>>> arr = np.array([True, False, True, False])
>>> ~arr
array([False,  True, False,  True])

Or the equivalent NumPy function:

>>> np.bitwise_not(arr)
array([False,  True, False,  True])

You cannot use the not operator or the operator.not function on NumPy arrays because these require that these return a single bool (not an array of booleans), however NumPy also contains a logical not function that works element-wise:

>>> np.logical_not(arr)
array([False,  True, False,  True])

That can also be applied to non-boolean arrays:

>>> arr = np.array([0, 1, 2, 0])
>>> np.logical_not(arr)
array([ True, False, False,  True])

Customizing your own classes

not works by calling bool on the value and negate the result. In the simplest case the truth value will just call __bool__ on the object.

So by implementing __bool__ (or __nonzero__ in Python 2) you can customize the truth value and thus the result of not:

class Test(object):
    def __init__(self, value):
        self._value = value

    def __bool__(self):
        print("__bool__ called on {!r}".format(self))
        return bool(self._value)

    __nonzero__ = __bool__  # Python 2 compatibility

    def __repr__(self):
        return "{self.__class__.__name__}({self._value!r})".format(self=self)

I added a print statement so you can verify that it really calls the method:

>>> a = Test(10)
>>> not a
__bool__ called on Test(10)

Likewise you could implement the __invert__ method to implement the behavior when ~ is applied:

class Test(object):
    def __init__(self, value):
        self._value = value

    def __invert__(self):
        print("__invert__ called on {!r}".format(self))
        return not self._value

    def __repr__(self):
        return "{self.__class__.__name__}({self._value!r})".format(self=self)

Again with a print call to see that it is actually called:

>>> a = Test(True)
>>> ~a
__invert__ called on Test(True)

>>> a = Test(False)
>>> ~a
__invert__ called on Test(False)

However implementing __invert__ like that could be confusing because it"s behavior is different from "normal" Python behavior. If you ever do that clearly document it and make sure that it has a pretty good (and common) use-case.

Answer #9

I"m getting an error in the IF conditional. What am I doing wrong?

There reason that you get a SyntaxError is that there is no && operator in Python. Likewise || and ! are not valid Python operators.

Some of the operators you may know from other languages have a different name in Python. The logical operators && and || are actually called and and or. Likewise the logical negation operator ! is called not.

So you could just write:

if len(a) % 2 == 0 and len(b) % 2 == 0:

or even:

if not (len(a) % 2 or len(b) % 2):

Some additional information (that might come in handy):

I summarized the operator "equivalents" in this table:

|  Operator (other languages)  |  Operator (Python)  |
|              &&              |         and         |
|              ||              |         or          |
|              !               |         not         |

See also Python documentation: 6.11. Boolean operations.

Besides the logical operators Python also has bitwise/binary operators:

|  Logical operator  |  Bitwise operator  |
|        and         |         &          |
|         or         |         |          |

There is no bitwise negation in Python (just the bitwise inverse operator ~ - but that is not equivalent to not).

See also 6.6. Unary arithmetic and bitwise/binary operations and 6.7. Binary arithmetic operations.

The logical operators (like in many other languages) have the advantage that these are short-circuited. That means if the first operand already defines the result, then the second operator isn"t evaluated at all.

To show this I use a function that simply takes a value, prints it and returns it again. This is handy to see what is actually evaluated because of the print statements:

>>> def print_and_return(value):
...     print(value)
...     return value

>>> res = print_and_return(False) and print_and_return(True)

As you can see only one print statement is executed, so Python really didn"t even look at the right operand.

This is not the case for the binary operators. Those always evaluate both operands:

>>> res = print_and_return(False) & print_and_return(True);

But if the first operand isn"t enough then, of course, the second operator is evaluated:

>>> res = print_and_return(True) and print_and_return(False);

To summarize this here is another Table:

|   Expression    |  Right side evaluated?  |
| `True` and ...  |           Yes           |
| `False` and ... |           No            |
|  `True` or ...  |           No            |
| `False` or ...  |           Yes           |

The True and False represent what bool(left-hand-side) returns, they don"t have to be True or False, they just need to return True or False when bool is called on them (1).

So in Pseudo-Code(!) the and and or functions work like these:

def and(expr1, expr2):
    left = evaluate(expr1)
    if bool(left):
        return evaluate(expr2)
        return left

def or(expr1, expr2):
    left = evaluate(expr1)
    if bool(left):
        return left
        return evaluate(expr2)

Note that this is pseudo-code not Python code. In Python you cannot create functions called and or or because these are keywords. Also you should never use "evaluate" or if bool(...).

Customizing the behavior of your own classes

This implicit bool call can be used to customize how your classes behave with and, or and not.

To show how this can be customized I use this class which again prints something to track what is happening:

class Test(object):
    def __init__(self, value):
        self.value = value

    def __bool__(self):
        print("__bool__ called on {!r}".format(self))
        return bool(self.value)

    __nonzero__ = __bool__  # Python 2 compatibility

    def __repr__(self):
        return "{self.__class__.__name__}({self.value})".format(self=self)

So let"s see what happens with that class in combination with these operators:

>>> if Test(True) and Test(False):
...     pass
__bool__ called on Test(True)
__bool__ called on Test(False)

>>> if Test(False) or Test(False):
...     pass
__bool__ called on Test(False)
__bool__ called on Test(False)

>>> if not Test(True):
...     pass
__bool__ called on Test(True)

If you don"t have a __bool__ method then Python also checks if the object has a __len__ method and if it returns a value greater than zero. That might be useful to know in case you create a sequence container.

See also 4.1. Truth Value Testing.

NumPy arrays and subclasses

Probably a bit beyond the scope of the original question but in case you"re dealing with NumPy arrays or subclasses (like Pandas Series or DataFrames) then the implicit bool call will raise the dreaded ValueError:

>>> import numpy as np
>>> arr = np.array([1,2,3])
>>> bool(arr)
ValueError: The truth value of an array with more than one element is ambiguous. Use a.any() or a.all()
>>> arr and arr
ValueError: The truth value of an array with more than one element is ambiguous. Use a.any() or a.all()

>>> import pandas as pd
>>> s = pd.Series([1,2,3])
>>> bool(s)
ValueError: The truth value of a Series is ambiguous. Use a.empty, a.bool(), a.item(), a.any() or a.all().
>>> s and s
ValueError: The truth value of a Series is ambiguous. Use a.empty, a.bool(), a.item(), a.any() or a.all().

In these cases you can use the logical and function from NumPy which performs an element-wise and (or or):

>>> np.logical_and(np.array([False,False,True,True]), np.array([True, False, True, False]))
array([False, False,  True, False])
>>> np.logical_or(np.array([False,False,True,True]), np.array([True, False, True, False]))
array([ True, False,  True,  True])

If you"re dealing just with boolean arrays you could also use the binary operators with NumPy, these do perform element-wise (but also binary) comparisons:

>>> np.array([False,False,True,True]) & np.array([True, False, True, False])
array([False, False,  True, False])
>>> np.array([False,False,True,True]) | np.array([True, False, True, False])
array([ True, False,  True,  True])


That the bool call on the operands has to return True or False isn"t completely correct. It"s just the first operand that needs to return a boolean in it"s __bool__ method:

class Test(object):
    def __init__(self, value):
        self.value = value

    def __bool__(self):
        return self.value

    __nonzero__ = __bool__  # Python 2 compatibility

    def __repr__(self):
        return "{self.__class__.__name__}({self.value})".format(self=self)

>>> x = Test(10) and Test(10)
TypeError: __bool__ should return bool, returned int
>>> x1 = Test(True) and Test(10)
>>> x2 = Test(False) and Test(10)

That"s because and actually returns the first operand if the first operand evaluates to False and if it evaluates to True then it returns the second operand:

>>> x1
>>> x2

Similarly for or but just the other way around:

>>> Test(True) or Test(10)
>>> Test(False) or Test(10)

However if you use them in an if statement the if will also implicitly call bool on the result. So these finer points may not be relevant for you.

Answer #10

THIS ANSWER: aims to provide a detailed, graph/hardware-level description of the issue - including TF2 vs. TF1 train loops, input data processors, and Eager vs. Graph mode executions. For an issue summary & resolution guidelines, see my other answer.

PERFORMANCE VERDICT: sometimes one is faster, sometimes the other, depending on configuration. As far as TF2 vs TF1 goes, they"re about on par on average, but significant config-based differences do exist, and TF1 trumps TF2 more often than vice versa. See "BENCHMARKING" below.

EAGER VS. GRAPH: the meat of this entire answer for some: TF2"s eager is slower than TF1"s, according to my testing. Details further down.

The fundamental difference between the two is: Graph sets up a computational network proactively, and executes when "told to" - whereas Eager executes everything upon creation. But the story only begins here:

  • Eager is NOT devoid of Graph, and may in fact be mostly Graph, contrary to expectation. What it largely is, is executed Graph - this includes model & optimizer weights, comprising a great portion of the graph.

  • Eager rebuilds part of own graph at execution; direct consequence of Graph not being fully built -- see profiler results. This has a computational overhead.

  • Eager is slower w/ Numpy inputs; per this Git comment & code, Numpy inputs in Eager include the overhead cost of copying tensors from CPU to GPU. Stepping through source code, data handling differences are clear; Eager directly passes Numpy, while Graph passes tensors which then evaluate to Numpy; uncertain of the exact process, but latter should involve GPU-level optimizations

  • TF2 Eager is slower than TF1 Eager - this is... unexpected. See benchmarking results below. Differences span from negligible to significant, but are consistent. Unsure why it"s the case - if a TF dev clarifies, will update answer.

TF2 vs. TF1: quoting relevant portions of a TF dev"s, Q. Scott Zhu"s, response - w/ bit of my emphasis & rewording:

In eager, the runtime needs to execute the ops and return the numerical value for every line of python code. The nature of single step execution causes it to be slow.

In TF2, Keras leverages tf.function to build its graph for training, eval and prediction. We call them "execution function" for the model. In TF1, the "execution function" was a FuncGraph, which shared some common component as TF function, but has a different implementation.

During the process, we somehow left an incorrect implementation for train_on_batch(), test_on_batch() and predict_on_batch(). They are still numerically correct, but the execution function for x_on_batch is a pure python function, rather than a tf.function wrapped python function. This will cause slowness

In TF2, we convert all input data into a, by which we can unify our execution function to handle the single type of the inputs. There might be some overhead in the dataset conversion, and I think this is a one-time only overhead, rather than a per-batch cost

With the last sentence of last paragraph above, and last clause of below paragraph:

To overcome the slowness in eager mode, we have @tf.function, which will turn a python function into a graph. When feed numerical value like np array, the body of the tf.function is converted into static graph, being optimized, and return the final value, which is fast and should have similar performance as TF1 graph mode.

I disagree - per my profiling results, which show Eager"s input data processing to be substantially slower than Graph"s. Also, unsure about in particular, but Eager does repeatedly call multiple of the same data conversion methods - see profiler.

Lastly, dev"s linked commit: Significant number of changes to support the Keras v2 loops.

Train Loops: depending on (1) Eager vs. Graph; (2) input data format, training in will proceed with a distinct train loop - in TF2, _select_training_loop(),, one of:

              training_v2.Loop()) # multi-worker mode
# Case 1: distribution strategy
# Case 2: generator-like. Input is Python generator, or Sequence object,
# or a non-distributed Dataset or iterator in eager execution.
# Case 3: Symbolic tensors or Numpy array-like. This includes Datasets and iterators 
# in graph mode (since they generate symbolic tensors).
training_generator.GeneratorLikeTrainingLoop() # Eager
training_arrays.ArrayLikeTrainingLoop() # Graph

Each handles resource allocation differently, and bears consequences on performance & capability.

Train Loops: fit vs train_on_batch, keras vs. tf.keras: each of the four uses different train loops, though perhaps not in every possible combination. keras" fit, for example, uses a form of fit_loop, e.g. training_arrays.fit_loop(), and its train_on_batch may use K.function(). tf.keras has a more sophisticated hierarchy described in part in previous section.

Train Loops: documentation -- relevant source docstring on some of the different execution methods:

Unlike other TensorFlow operations, we don"t convert python numerical inputs to tensors. Moreover, a new graph is generated for each distinct python numerical value

function instantiates a separate graph for every unique set of input shapes and datatypes.

A single tf.function object might need to map to multiple computation graphs under the hood. This should be visible only as performance (tracing graphs has a nonzero computational and memory cost)

Input data processors: similar to above, the processor is selected case-by-case, depending on internal flags set according to runtime configurations (execution mode, data format, distribution strategy). The simplest case"s with Eager, which works directly w/ Numpy arrays. For some specific examples, see this answer.


  • Is decisive; no single configuration crowned itself atop all model & data sizes.
  • Data size relative to model size is important; for small data & model, data transfer (e.g. CPU to GPU) overhead can dominate. Likewise, small overhead processors can run slower on large data per data conversion time dominating (see convert_to_tensor in "PROFILER")
  • Speed differs per train loops" and input data processors" differing means of handling resources.

BENCHMARKS: the grinded meat. -- Word Document -- Excel Spreadsheet


  • %-less numbers are all seconds
  • % computed as (1 - longer_time / shorter_time)*100; rationale: we"re interested by what factor one is faster than the other; shorter / longer is actually a non-linear relation, not useful for direct comparison
  • % sign determination:
    • TF2 vs TF1: + if TF2 is faster
    • GvE (Graph vs. Eager): + if Graph is faster
  • TF2 = TensorFlow 2.0.0 + Keras 2.3.1; TF1 = TensorFlow 1.14.0 + Keras 2.2.5


PROFILER - Explanation: Spyder 3.3.6 IDE profiler.

  • Some functions are repeated in nests of others; hence, it"s hard to track down the exact separation between "data processing" and "training" functions, so there will be some overlap - as pronounced in the very last result.

  • % figures computed w.r.t. runtime minus build time

  • Build time computed by summing all (unique) runtimes which were called 1 or 2 times
  • Train time computed by summing all (unique) runtimes which were called the same # of times as the # of iterations, and some of their nests" runtimes
  • Functions are profiled according to their original names, unfortunately (i.e. _func = func will profile as func), which mixes in build time - hence the need to exclude it


  • Executed code at bottom w/ minimal background tasks running
  • GPU was "warmed up" w/ a few iterations before timing iterations, as suggested in this post
  • CUDA 10.0.130, cuDNN 7.6.0, TensorFlow 1.14.0, & TensorFlow 2.0.0 built from source, plus Anaconda
  • Python 3.7.4, Spyder 3.3.6 IDE
  • GTX 1070, Windows 10, 24GB DDR4 2.4-MHz RAM, i7-7700HQ 2.8-GHz CPU


  • Benchmark "small", "medium", & "large" model & data sizes
  • Fix # of parameters for each model size, independent of input data size
  • "Larger" model has more parameters and layers
  • "Larger" data has a longer sequence, but same batch_size and num_channels
  • Models only use Conv1D, Dense "learnable" layers; RNNs avoided per TF-version implem. differences
  • Always ran one train fit outside of benchmarking loop, to omit model & optimizer graph building
  • Not using sparse data (e.g. layers.Embedding()) or sparse targets (e.g. SparseCategoricalCrossEntropy()

LIMITATIONS: a "complete" answer would explain every possible train loop & iterator, but that"s surely beyond my time ability, nonexistent paycheck, or general necessity. The results are only as good as the methodology - interpret with an open mind.


import numpy as np
import tensorflow as tf
import random
from termcolor import cprint
from time import time

from tensorflow.keras.layers import Input, Dense, Conv1D
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Dropout, GlobalAveragePooling1D
from tensorflow.keras.models import Model
from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import Adam
import tensorflow.keras.backend as K
#from keras.layers import Input, Dense, Conv1D
#from keras.layers import Dropout, GlobalAveragePooling1D
#from keras.models import Model 
#from keras.optimizers import Adam
#import keras.backend as K


def reset_seeds(reset_graph_with_backend=None, verbose=1):
    if reset_graph_with_backend is not None:
        K = reset_graph_with_backend
        if verbose:

    if tf.__version__[0] == "2":
    if verbose:
        print("RANDOM SEEDS RESET")

print("TF version: {}".format(tf.__version__))

def timeit(func, iterations, *args, _verbose=0, **kwargs):
    t0 = time()
    for _ in range(iterations):
        func(*args, **kwargs)
    print("Time/iter: %.4f sec" % ((time() - t0) / iterations))

def make_model_small(batch_shape):
    ipt   = Input(batch_shape=batch_shape)
    x     = Conv1D(128, 40, strides=4, padding="same")(ipt)
    x     = GlobalAveragePooling1D()(x)
    x     = Dropout(0.5)(x)
    x     = Dense(64, activation="relu")(x)
    out   = Dense(1,  activation="sigmoid")(x)
    model = Model(ipt, out)
    model.compile(Adam(lr=1e-4), "binary_crossentropy")
    return model

def make_model_medium(batch_shape):
    ipt = Input(batch_shape=batch_shape)
    x = ipt
    for filters in [64, 128, 256, 256, 128, 64]:
        x  = Conv1D(filters, 20, strides=1, padding="valid")(x)
    x     = GlobalAveragePooling1D()(x)
    x     = Dense(256, activation="relu")(x)
    x     = Dropout(0.5)(x)
    x     = Dense(128, activation="relu")(x)
    x     = Dense(64,  activation="relu")(x)
    out   = Dense(1,   activation="sigmoid")(x)
    model = Model(ipt, out)
    model.compile(Adam(lr=1e-4), "binary_crossentropy")
    return model

def make_model_large(batch_shape):
    ipt   = Input(batch_shape=batch_shape)
    x     = Conv1D(64,  400, strides=4, padding="valid")(ipt)
    x     = Conv1D(128, 200, strides=1, padding="valid")(x)
    for _ in range(40):
        x = Conv1D(256,  12, strides=1, padding="same")(x)
    x     = Conv1D(512,  20, strides=2, padding="valid")(x)
    x     = Conv1D(1028, 10, strides=2, padding="valid")(x)
    x     = Conv1D(256,   1, strides=1, padding="valid")(x)
    x     = GlobalAveragePooling1D()(x)
    x     = Dense(256, activation="relu")(x)
    x     = Dropout(0.5)(x)
    x     = Dense(128, activation="relu")(x)
    x     = Dense(64,  activation="relu")(x)    
    out   = Dense(1,   activation="sigmoid")(x)
    model = Model(ipt, out)
    model.compile(Adam(lr=1e-4), "binary_crossentropy")
    return model

def make_data(batch_shape):
    return np.random.randn(*batch_shape), 
           np.random.randint(0, 2, (batch_shape[0], 1))

def make_data_tf(batch_shape, n_batches, iters):
    data = np.random.randn(n_batches, *batch_shape),
    trgt = np.random.randint(0, 2, (n_batches, batch_shape[0], 1))
    return, trgt))#.repeat(iters)

batch_shape_small  = (32, 140,   30)
batch_shape_medium = (32, 1400,  30)
batch_shape_large  = (32, 14000, 30)

batch_shapes = batch_shape_small, batch_shape_medium, batch_shape_large
make_model_fns = make_model_small, make_model_medium, make_model_large
iterations = [200, 100, 50]
shape_names = ["Small data",  "Medium data",  "Large data"]
model_names = ["Small model", "Medium model", "Large model"]

def test_all(fit=False, tf_dataset=False):
    for model_fn, model_name, iters in zip(make_model_fns, model_names, iterations):
        for batch_shape, shape_name in zip(batch_shapes, shape_names):
            if (model_fn is make_model_large) and (batch_shape == batch_shape_small):
            if tf_dataset:
                data = make_data_tf(batch_shape, iters, iters)
                data = make_data(batch_shape)
            model = model_fn(batch_shape)

            if fit:
                if tf_dataset:
                    t0 = time()
          , steps_per_epoch=iters)
                    print("Time/iter: %.4f sec" % ((time() - t0) / iters))
                    timeit(, iters, *data, _verbose=1, verbose=0)
                timeit(model.train_on_batch, iters, *data, _verbose=1)
            cprint(">> {}, {} done <<
".format(model_name, shape_name), "blue")
            del model

test_all(fit=True, tf_dataset=False)